Nope, it's not wrong at all. But there's a cost to every fix, and personally I'd rather they fixed the stuff that actually affects play amongst non-pathological gamers rather than the occasional typo or bad edit. If the typo or bad edit results in genuine confusion, that's the sort of thing that ought to be fixed. Otherwise, I'd rather they spent the time making sure their next produce doesn't have as many errors.The divide occurs when you consider,
The rules shouldn't be written so blatantly poorly and not be errata'd or FAQ'd.
If it is so clear what the intent is and the RAW so blatantly contrasting against it, why the hells haven't we fixed it already?
Because the intent is obvious, and fixing it would accomplish nothing useful at the cost of time/money/energy that would be taken away from something more important, like writing the next adventure path or rule supplement, or answering a question that actually needs answering.
It would have been nice if the original text were written correctly, but there's little point in fixing it at this point.
It's not very professional however.
They'll fix typos but won't change or insert a word to make things unambiguous?
Fixing most typos doesn't accomplish much, just makes things easier to read. Sitting down to read Shield Master, all it says is that I don't take penalties while wielding another weapon.
Is it wrong to want the text to match what the intent is? Is it wrong to expect that? When I pop open a book should I not expect the words to mean what they say?
I think it's a shame that it's apparently such a great cost to drop a line on the FAQ that we simply go without and the feat continues to do what it apparently doesn't mean to do and doesn't do what it was intended to do.
If you handed me a packet of rules for your game and the packet says that the blue knight attacks 6 times and when I try to do it you go "OH...
Bad analogy. In your example, you've made it apparent that there was no way to know differently. In the actual case, it's embarrassingly obvious what is intended. Playing it "as written" would require the players to be automata rather than thinking beings. Hopefully you (nor your player, if you GM) do not play as automata. It's a pretty dull way to play a roleplaying game.
I think that kind of knee jerk reaction is completely out of hand. "Hey this is poorly worded, can I use it as written?"
"NOOOOOOO!!! AND I NEVER WANT TO SEE YOU AGAIN!!!!!!!!!AAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!"
Seriously?
More like
Player: "Hey, this is poorly worded. Despite knowing full well what it means, can I pounce on this editing blunder and do this ridiculous game-destroying thing?"
GM: *tommy-lee-jones-newspaper.jpg*
Player: "...Yeah, that was pretty dumb."
|
I think that kind of knee jerk reaction is completely out of hand. "Hey this is poorly worded, can I use it as written?"
"NOOOOOOO!!! AND I NEVER WANT TO SEE YOU AGAIN!!!!!!!!!AAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!"
Seriously?More like
Player: "Hey, this is poorly worded. Despite knowing full well what it means, can I pounce on this editing blunder and do this ridiculous game-destroying thing?"
GM: *tommy-lee-jones-newspaper.jpg*
Player: "...Yeah, that was pretty dumb."
Perhaps I understated the player a bit, but still his response was to ban the hypothetical player from his table. Period. Simply for asking if he could do it.
Improved/Greater TWF, however, gives you additional attacks at a -5/-10 penalty, so if Shield Master allowed you to ignore TWF penalties, as opposed to reducing the penalty by -2, then you could use TWF, Imp. TWF and Grtr. TWF to make an attack of something like +15/+15/+15/+15/+10 for an attack routine.You don't take a -5/-10 penalty on iterative, it's because your BAB is 5 lower.Errata is in order so as to quell the number of Shieldbasher munchkins.I seriously doubt this is anything more than theory. I can't imagine the kind of person who would actually build a character to make use of this to reduce Power Attack, Iterative attack, and other penalties.
I know if I had a player do this, I'd ask if it was a joke and if he was serious that would probably be when I ask him to never come to game I'm at again. ;-)
Oh! You're right! Scary.
Honestly wish 2WF was just one feat that went by your BAB. It really should just be one feat.
Even the version where you can only ignore all TWF penalties is quite powerful as Tels shows, possibly too powerful, just look at how many max bab attacks that allows... So is that really the intent of the feat? I'd reason that RAI it should only nullify the penalties from the Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties Table in the core rulebook instead of negating all two weapon fighting penalties.
I'd love to see a FAQ on this mess of a feat. How does it work in society play?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I assume you don't allow blood money or simulacrum at your tables either.
Sadly, I allow both because there is no alternate RAW to blood money and simulacrum. I absolutely hate the blood money spell. Hate it with a passion, but if you play at my table you are welcome to cast it. Just so we are clear, I myself have a blood money oracle (elf ancient lore) that casts free animate dead, restoration, and raise dead.
ban the hypothetical player from his table. Period. Simply for asking if he could do it.
It is because he is either joking or we will have a chasm of differences all down the line and playing with him will be a miserable experience for me and the other players and I hate getting cornered by players asking for me to shut down a players ridiculous exploits (and yes this does happen when you let people into a game who wants to exploit every poorly written thing they can find.)
How does it work in society play?
It works just like it should in all games, where you reduce twf penalties on page 202 of the core rules.
Bad analogy. In your example, you've made it apparent that there was no way to know differently. In the actual case, it's embarrassingly obvious what is intended. Playing it "as written" would require the players to be automata rather than thinking beings. Hopefully you (nor your player, if you GM) do not play as automata. It's a pretty dull way to play a roleplaying game.
How do you know what was intended? Probably you went online and had people tell you how it worked or have your own personal opinion on how it should run despite what it clearly says right?
I want to play by the rules. If the rules aren't conveying what they should be, and that one has to search or come up with an alternate interpretation than what is written, then it should probably be rewritten to convey the proper interpretation.
The thing is the rules were never intended ro be read like lawerspeak. The rules we use are a mixture of written common sense and concensus.
In this case ww have a paradigm say 99% of dm probably agree on. The problem is the small minoroty that voew the liberal reading as the correct one often use extreme examples and come off as the homeless guy downtown screaming about the world.
Bad analogy. In your example, you've made it apparent that there was no way to know differently. In the actual case, it's embarrassingly obvious what is intended. Playing it "as written" would require the players to be automata rather than thinking beings. Hopefully you (nor your player, if you GM) do not play as automata. It's a pretty dull way to play a roleplaying game.How do you know what was intended?
Because nobody in their right mind would believe that shields were intended to be the secret planet-destroying weapon just waiting for the right player to notice the Easter egg hidden within a feat description? Because I understand that the world is imperfect and sometimes a book describing ways to have fun when you're with your buddies doesn't measure up to the exacting technical writing standards demanded by NASA specifications and that the reader is expected to fire a synapse every now and then if the text has a clearly-resolved inference ambiguity?
Seriously, if the printer had accidentally replaced a single instance of the word "grapple" with "grape", would you have tossed the rule as unintelligible because you just couldn't figure out the intent, or would your future tetori builds all have ranks in Profession (vintner)? That's only slightly less than the level of cognitive ability required to figure this one out. I didn't have to go online and read forums to figure this out, and neither did you, and neither did you.
I want to play by the rules. If the rules aren't conveying what they should be, and that one has to search or come up with an alternate interpretation than what is written, then it should probably be rewritten to convey the proper interpretation.
Circles and circles and circles again. In the interest of avoiding an infinite loop, I bow out. Enjoy your quest for answers to questions you already know the answer to. Hopefully we can discuss something more constructive in another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously this feat is too strong as written. That's why I'm taking advantage of it in PFS.
Ride the RAW till its fixed.
You do realize the dm CAN still tell you no, will in all likely do so, and gives you a bad reputation for rules lawyering gouda right?
[casts Raise Thread]
I'm bumping this thread because I decided, instead of making a new thread and starting from scratch, that we'd revive an old thread on the matter (which quite a few FAQ hits) and get an official answer resolved this way.
If you want official clarification on the Shield Master feat wording, please hit the FAQ button on the OP. With enough FAQ hits, we can get this (apparently not so simple) issue resolved once and for all!
Official Rules Response
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello all!
Question:
Due to the threads
Here
Here
Here
And Here
I feel as if this is a question asked frequently enough that it might deserve an FAQ.The basic arguments go like this
RAW:The feat says you take no attack roll penalties.
RAI:The intent of the feat seems to be that it only applies to TWFing.
[i]Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.[i]
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
Shield Master: When Shield Master says “You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon” it seems like in context it means you don’t take the penalty for Two-Weapon Fighting, but it just says “any penalties” so it isn’t clear. Which penalties does the feat let a character ignore?
Shield Master allows a character to ignore the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties on attack rolls with a shield while wielding another weapon, but not any other penalties.
Thank you very much for the official FAQ response, PDT.
As a quick follow-up question, does a character wielding two shields (as weapons) while possessing the Shield Master feat mean both shields (as weapons) don't suffer TWF penalties with either shield?